The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The ClusPro web server for protein–protein docking
Open accessAbstract
The ClusPro server (https://cluspro.org) is a widely used tool for protein–protein docking. The server provides a simple home page for basic use, requiring only two files in Protein Data Bank (PDB) format. However, ClusPro also offers a number of advanced options to modify the search; these include the removal of unstructured protein regions, application of attraction or repulsion, accounting for pairwise distance restraints, construction of homo-multimers, consideration of small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) data, and location of heparin-binding sites. Six different energy functions can be used, depending on the type of protein. Docking with each energy parameter set results in ten models defined by centers of highly populated clusters of low-energy docked structures. This protocol describes the use of the various options, the construction of auxiliary restraints files, the selection of the energy parameters, and the analysis of the results. Although the server is heavily used, runs are generally completed in <4 h.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
HADDOCK: A Protein−Protein Docking Approach Based on Biochemical or Biophysical Information
Dominguez, C., Boelens, R., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja026939x · Cited by 3,187
ZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm
Chen, R., Li, L., & Weng, Z. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10389 · Cited by 1,393
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions
Janin, J., Henrick, K., Moult, J., Eyck, L. T., Sternberg, M. J. E., Vajda, S., Vakser, I., & Wodak, S. J. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10381 · Cited by 703
Self-citationDocking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2013) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.24428 · Cited by 249
Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22818 · Cited by 226
Pilpa, R. M., Robson, S. A., Villareal, V. A., Wong, M. L., Phillips, M., & Clubb, R. T. (2009) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m806007200 · Cited by 118
Cited by
ColabFold - Making protein folding accessible to all
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S., & Steinegger, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.15.456425 · Cited by 9,391
Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808
Protein-peptide docking: opportunities and challenges
Ciemny, M., Kurcinski, M., Kamel, K., Kolinski, A., Alam, N., Schueler-Furman, O., & Kmiecik, S. (2018) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.05.006 · Cited by 306
AF2Complex predicts direct physical interactions in multimeric proteins with deep learning
Gao, M., Nakajima An, D., Parks, J. M., & Skolnick, J. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29394-2 · Cited by 252
Taftaf, R., Liu, X., Singh, S., Jia, Y., Dashzeveg, N. K., Hoffmann, A. D., El-Shennawy, L., Ramos, E. K., Adorno-Cruz, V., Schuster, E. J., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25189-z · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Kozakov, D., Hall, D. R., Xia, B., Porter, K. A., Padhorny, D., Yueh, C., Beglov, D., & Vajda, S.
- Venue
- Nature Protocols
- Published
- 2017-01-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-278
- ISSN
- 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-2189
- OpenAlex
- W2572080171
- Cited by
- 3,310
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 63.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
